>>87
I'm sorry, but to me..
Everything is subjective.
originally there was the simpler naive set theory, with rather intuitive axioms
In which way they were "intuitive"? How can the property of being "unordered" be intuitive?
it proved inconsistent (see Russell's paradox)
Usingly a nonsensical construction, based on unrestricted quantifier "all".
The axioms themselves may seem a bit strange at first as some of them do appear non-constructive.
They are just hacks, whose sole purpose is to patch their naive theory and hide problems under the carpet.
How do you know the parts are consistent?
Using senses? Decomposition should always terminate into sensible physical terms.
I don't find that paradox that much stranger than saying that the cardinality of some continous real interval like [0,1] has the same as the cardinality of all real numbers
both are nonsense.